so if a governance module was implemented and vote was in your favor, what outcome are you specifically seeking for you, .org, the network, etc. specifically?
I replied:
Well if I could even consider submitting a proposal where I’d seek change, it would be in the following:
No permanent figure heads. Channel owners, admins, maintainers have cycles. They’re evaluated every X periods via elections (also voted on chain), and at each election they bid as candidates. We can set term recurrence like in any democracy. Can force the network to continuously attract new talent which can be responsible for areas of the network. Pillar brands can be seen as “parties”.
High value backlinks / traffic routing. We can set a domain which represents the network i.e. zenon.community. It’s also owned by a person voted-in by the network and its ownership is cycled every X period (transferred from one to the next). This domain is the defacto domain used for high value traffic listings i.e. CMC, CoinGecko and others. We then periodically hold an election that would vote which domain .community redirects to. So for example, I cast a bid to have .org the main domain for XYZ reasons, I write my case. Others can cast alternative sites and domains. We have an election. Org wins as an example. For the period of X time, the .community domain will redirect to the .org domain, granting it traffic from these core resources. This forces the active domains to then prove their value over their term. At the next election, new domains can submit their bids and a new election is held. The only advantage .Org has in this case is that it spent years developing technology which can help it win elections. It spent its own rewards to develop those advantages. Would Org need to be open source in that case? Maybe, maybe not. It can pick whether it’ll submit an AZ to sell its assets to the network, or whether it’ll remain closed source during its term. Perhaps it can convince voters that regardless of being closed source or not, there is still a greater advantage for the network if it used its traffic routes for the network. Or maybe I’ll bid with an open source Org? The network will decide with votes, Org just has to present its bid. The .community domain acts as a router.
There could be “no confidence” elections to change things earlier than the scheduled end of terms. We can easily act like a decent democracy. We just have to formulate the rules in a way where we don’t spam the voting mechanism. The rules can be voted-in by the governance module as well. We can also fund someone specializing in web3 political science to come up with the whole.
Talking off the top of my head. It would be designed to avoid network capture by a select few figure heads. Fairness at its core.
I think the most reliable way to avoid capture of network representatives and channels is to avoid having them. Its the most reliable way to engineer any liability right out of the situation.
The idea to build voting mechanisms and admin elections sound like great ideas for .Org or any pillar brand and its community to apply as a way to self govern.
So how do we tackle the issue of core channels? We cannot have permanent figure heads. We cannot all bid for spots on CMC and high value site listings. It’s not the way most of these platforms have been designed. If we put no links, we just make it harder on ourselves.
We will solve this entire issue, and be so much more effective by sunsetting old channels. Any entity can open their own channel / social account. Based on your skills and resources, I imagine your channels will be amongst the very best.
I disagree, sunsetting is just an excuse to benefit from existing routing paths into their new channel (then they can call themselves the founders and be the figure heads they always wanted to be). Same problem as routing old CMC links. If it gets sunset, there are no backlinks to new communities. Everyone starts from scratch. You really want that the appearance for a user coming from CMC and clicking on the telegram link? Seeing a dead main channel and no direction?
Bandaids guys, all doing the same thing and not fixing the core problem that a few select people can take advantage of something that was network-owned and originally not theirs.
And the same applies to OG the Zenon_Network handle. It’s an OG resource, owned by the network, back linked to high value / high traffic sources. If you want to kill TG, you have to kill the twitter handle and all other channels, with no new links pointing to new resources. That’s the fairest way to start from scratch.
Also nothing prevents those channels to be re-launched in some future by the figure heads owning them already, aka TG @0x3639? In-perpetuity should not exist for assets owned by OG Zenon which MANY were here to build. Long before some people showed up.
Read between the lines guys, there is a quest to centralize ownership and power at Zenon. And some obvious figure heads are making that intent very clear.
If sunset it cannot point to new resources. The idea is to sunset all paths actually. What happens to CMC and high-value backlinks? This is a bandaid so that we forget about the problem, a new community is formed elsewhere and then their figure heads once again try to speak on behalf of the entire network. They can even make claims to CMC that they’re the new community, without approval of the network as a whole.
My zenon AI responds with this after feeding all the data. It seems pretty decent to me. But as I said not really my expertise, just trying.
The governance model suggested by @mehowbrainz brings forward a series of innovative ideas that resonate well with our network’s ethos of decentralization and community-driven development. Here are some thoughts and potential enhancements to further refine the proposal:
Cycled Leadership Positions: The idea of having rotational roles for admins, maintainers, and other leadership positions is compelling. It encourages diversity of thought and leadership and prevents any form of stagnation or power consolidation. We might consider setting specific criteria and qualifications for these roles to ensure that candidates are well-prepared to serve the community effectively.
Domain Management as a Governance Tool: Using zenon.community as a high-value traffic router is a strategic use of digital real estate. By allowing it to redirect to various community-approved domains based on election outcomes, we create a dynamic environment where domains must continuously demonstrate value to the community. This could potentially drive higher engagement and innovation across all community platforms.
Balancing Open vs. Closed Source Decisions: The flexibility to decide whether certain projects or tools should be open or closed source via community votes introduces a pragmatic approach to intellectual property. This could be further improved by guidelines or frameworks that help the community evaluate the implications of these decisions on security, development, and collaboration.
Implementing No Confidence Votes: The provision for no-confidence votes adds a necessary check within our governance framework, allowing the community to rectify decisions that may not unfold as expected. However, we should define clear parameters for initiating such votes to prevent potential misuse and ensure they are used judiciously.
Managing Voting Fatigue: To address concerns about overloading the community with frequent decisions, perhaps we could establish a tiered voting system where only decisions meeting certain impact thresholds require full community involvement, while lesser decisions could be handled by randomly selected smaller panels or existing committees.
Expert Consultation: Bringing in a specialist in web3 political science is a great idea to ensure that the governance structure we adopt is robust, fair, and sustainable. This expert could help draft a detailed governance charter that would include mechanisms for amendments and updates as the network evolves.
This proposal indeed leans in the right direction by prioritizing fairness and continual evolution in our governance practices. I look forward to further refining these ideas with the community and to moving towards a more decentralized and dynamic governance model.
Zenon doesn’t follow trends right, it’s a pain but we should do anything in our power to be the most decentralized. Because if we are not eventually agents will infiltrate and fuck shit up just like they did with Bitcoin and it’s blocksize war.
Inaccurate statement. Telegram was owned by Mr. Kaine, then Sigli, then 0x. It was never network-owned. It can’t be.
A suggestion was made to preserve the twitter history by freezing the account in time forever. I would do this if I could. However, again, this is not a network owned channel, it’s literally owned by Kaine and will transition to another human being, not the network, or get terminated.
no rational person would want to “own” or take over TG main after all this. The only logical solution is to sunset it and build new community paths owned by their sponsors. Kaine would never support what is happening now.
I don’t have this black and white view. To me, telegram is a resource. It’s a public chat. There’s bots with links, and human interaction about Zenon occurs. I try to be as helpful as I can to others that come through, and keep conversation as productive and civilized as possible.
You need to stop seeing this as something were its only useful when it succesfully converts a person into a NoM user, that’s not the exclusive use. You are free to create another tg channel for that, and if its that good, we should feature it on CMC, as the intended application of the cmc landing page is to onboard users.
Therefore, the TG cannot dictate decisions on behalf of the network, it only allows communication about the network.
You guys don’t understand the value of traffic sources.
None of you including me should be permanent maintainers/admins of anything.
It is your beliefs that Kaine granted permanent ownership of spaces which belonged to the network. If it wasn’t explicitly mentioned by him, it’s your assumptions.